370 likes | 817 Views
Religious Language. Speaking about God Part 1. Why Religious language? . The concept of a God is: Something other Something timeless We talk of things using our knowledge that is acquired through our experience
E N D
Religious Language Speaking about God Part 1
Why Religious language? • The concept of a God is: • Something other • Something timeless • We talk of things using our knowledge that is acquired through our experience • If something is ‘other’ and ‘timeless’ it is by definition not part of our experience • How then can we talk of something that does not belong in our world?
True or False? • Cognitive • Statements that are either true or false • Used of God in theistic proofs • Non-Cognitive • Statements that are neither true nor false • Used by philosophers who generally do not seek theistic proof
What does a word mean? • Univocal • Words that have only one meaning • E.g. sky, tree • Words about God must have same meaning as in our world • Equivocal • Words that have more than one meaning • E.g. mouse, web • Via negative
Thomas Aquinas • Language as Analogical • Middle position • God not like us • But we can reason about Him • Means of comparing what we know to God e.g. father, love, good
Analogy • Of attribution • Contains idea of origin • E.g. Human wisdom is a reflection of God’s wisdom • Of proportionality • Attributes of God are proportional to his nature • Just as attributes of humans is proportional to their nature
Putting it all together • Answer the following exam question in groups • Aquinas provides the solution to talking about God through the concept of analogy. Discuss.
How to answer • Start with the problem – Why are we even discussing this? • Explain concept of God • Consider Cognitive and Non-cognitive language • Introduce Univocal and equivocal - examples • Aquinas’s answer – Analogy – explain, give example • What do you think and why? • Conclusion
Religious Language Speaking about God Part 2
Logical Positivism • Empiricism • Knowledge is based on experience • The Vienna Circle • 1920s & 1930s • What is meaning of ‘meaning’? • Philosophers • Schlick and Carnap
Verification Principle • By the Logical Positivists • Logical principle about meaning of words • For a statement to be meaningful it had to be verifiable by sense experience
Verification Principle • Wittgenstein • A major influence due to his theory that language had to be about objects • But misunderstood as he believed in the mystical • VP excluded statements such as • ‘Julius Caesar landed at Deal in 55BC’
Verification Principle • A J Ayer • Book, 1936, Language, Truth and Logic • Strong verification • Verify by sense experience and observation • Weak verification • Verified by others
Problems with VP • Principle itself is not verifiable and therefore is not meaningful • Keith Ward – religious statements not excluded • If I were God I could check the truth of my own existence
Problems with VP • John Hick • Eschatological verification • Theological statements meaningful by weak verification • ‘Jesus was raised from the dead’ = historical statement • Ayer later admitted inadequacy of the principle
Falsification Principle • Anthony Flew – 1950s • Statement is meaningless if no sense experience cannot count against it • Parable of John Wisdom • The invisible gardener • ‘Death by a thousand qualifications’
Problems with FP • Hare • Religious beliefs are ‘Bliks’ • Parable of lunatic who thought dons were trying to murder him • Mitchell • Religious statements can be falsified in principle but not in practice • Parable of resistance leader • Hare and Mitchell accept falsification principle to an extent
Problems with VP • Richard Swinburne • The coherence of Theism 1977 • Claimed that statements can have meaning although they are not falsifiable • Toys play at night • John Hick – Celestial City • Verifiable but not falsifiable, yet is meaningful • FP fails it’s own test just as VP does
How to answer • Start with the problem – Why are we even discussing this? • Explain empiricism • Introduce the Vienna Circle • VP – what does it say – example • Who has challenged it and how • What do you think and why? • FP – what does it say – example • Who has challenged it and how • What do you think and why? • Conclusion
Religious Language Speaking about God Part 3
Symbolic Language • Signs • Provide information • Symbols • Impact on feelings and emotion • Have the power to evoke participation
Symbol • Paul Tillich – 1885-1965 • “Symbolic language alone is able to express the ultimate because it transcends the capacity of any finite reality to express it directly” (Dynamics of Faith, 1958) • God is not ‘a Being’ but Being itself • God is personal but not a person
Symbol • Don Cupitt (Taking leave of God, 1980) • Religious language is not about the transcendent or metaphysical • It is about our experiences, our psychology and feelings • Therefore the problems of religious language disappear • Not everyone agrees though, Keith Ward maintains the idea that God is transcendent (Holding Fast to God,1982)
Metaphors • Metaphor creates participation • Janet Soskice • (Metaphor and Religious Language, 1985) • Language reveals something about God • E.g. Brain = Computer
Metaphors • Sallie McFague • (Models of God in Religious Language, 1982) • Not only religious language but theology is metaphorical • Root metaphors = Father, Son, Kingdom • Wants new metaphors, e.g. mother, lover, friend
Something to think about • Do you think a symbol can represent that which is beyond our experience? • How can we be sure that a symbol does not give the wrong insights about the ultimate?
Myths • A myth was seen as something that was not true • Now seen as giving insight into human existence • Need to be deciphered. language used is symbolic
Models • Ian Ramsey (Religious language, 1957) • A model helps us to understand the original • ‘Models’ need to be qualified • ‘Qualifiers’ point to how we should understand the original in relation to the model
Models Model Infinitely good Qualifier
Language games • Wittgenstein (1889-1951) • Early ideas of ‘Picture theory of meaning’ • Words name objects • Therefore objects are meaning of words • Latter claimed he was wrong • Unrealistic to assume that all words are based on pictures
Language games • Put forward idea of language-games • Meanings depend on the context in which a word is used • E.g.: problems with the concept of the ‘soul’ would disappear if people realised that the physical language game does not apply to the soul
Putting it all together • Answer the following exam question in groups • ‘All talk about God is both without meaning and without purpose.’ Discuss.
How to answer • Start with the problem – Why are we even discussing this? • Pick out the salient points – ‘talk of God – without meaning – without purpose. • Define God • Consider the arguments against the idea of God – verification and falsification • Include criticism of above • Refer to the various ideas of symbolism, showing how religious language could be valid. • What do you think and why? • Conclusion